Hoffman v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad

Sixth Circuit

Hoffman v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad

114 F.2d 367, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3122

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1940

DocketNo. 8262

StatusPublished

This text of 114 F.2d 367 (Hoffman v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoffman v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad, 114 F.2d 367, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3122 (6th Cir. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause having come on for hearing upon the record and appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s bill of exceptions; and it appearing that the trial and appeal proceedings occurred prior to the effective date of the new Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c, and it appearing that said bill of exceptions was not proffered to nor signed by the District Judge until November 7, 1938, after the expiration of the trial term on the first Tuesday in June, 1938, and it also appearing that there was, within said term, no extension of the time for settling and signing said bill of exceptions, with the consequence that, when the District Judge approved the bill of exceptions on November 7, 1938, he was without power to do so and his approval void (In re Bills of Exceptions, 6 Cir., 37 F.2d 849; Exporters of Manufacturers’ Products, Inc. v. Butterworth-Judson Company, 258 U.S. 365), 42 S.Ct. 331, 66 L.Ed. 663, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the bill of exceptions be stricken and the appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This cause having come on for hearing upon the record and appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s bill of exceptions; and it appearing that the trial and appeal proceedings occurred prior to the effective date of the new Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c, and it appearing that said bill of exceptions was not proffered to nor signed by the District Judge until November 7, 1938, after the expiration of the trial term on the first Tuesday in June, 1938, and it also appearing that there was, within said term, no extension of the time for settling and signing said bill of exceptions, with the consequence that, when the District Judge approved the bill of exceptions on November 7, 1938, he was without power to do so and his approval void (In re Bills of Exceptions, 6 Cir., 37 F.2d 849; Exporters of Manufacturers’ Products, Inc. v. Butterworth-Judson Company, 258 U.S. 365), 42 S.Ct. 331, 66 L.Ed. 663, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the bill of exceptions be stricken and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F.2d 367, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-grand-trunk-western-railroad-ca6-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack